Hinkley C 2018: plus ca change, plus la meme chose.....
Parliament, with a very small number of honourable exceptions, has utterly failed to properly scrutinize- and halt - this ongoing secret scandal. Many MPs should look in their mirrors on the first day of the new year, and ask themselves why they have so abjectly failed in their role as scrutineers of policy as well as lawmakers ( what are their research staff doing ?), with the consequence of a massive tens of billions of pounds penalty on current taxpayers and future electricity bill payers.
David
Advisers on Hinkley Point C nuclear power station had ‘cosy’ ties to both sides
Apparent conflict of interest on Somerset project
Consultancy firms working for the government on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station were advising the project’s Chinese investor and its French builder at the same time, an investigation by The Times has revealed.
KPMG, the professional services group, was paid £4.4 million between 2012 and 2017 as a financial adviser to the energy and business departments, despite telling officials that it was also acting for China General Nuclear Power Corp on the project.
The apparent conflict of interest has been revealed after the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened to press for disclosure from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Previously, officials had redacted the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive.
In a second potential conflict, Lazard, the financial advisory firm, was paid £2.6 million between 2012 and 2015 to advise the business department on Hinkley Point. Details of its previously redacted tender documents reveal that it was an adviser to EDF, the French developer that is investing in Hinkley Point alongside the Chinese. A source said that Lazard’s advice to EDF was not related to the Somerset project.
MPs expressed concern about the perceived conflicts. The government has struck a 35-year deal under which the energy companies could receive £50 billion above market prices.
Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said that Hinkley Point was crucial public infrastructure and therefore it was “vital that auditors get full sight” of the potential conflicts. It “looks cosy”, she said, adding that it was “not really appropriate” for firms to be advising both sides.
The details have been released more than a year and half after The Times complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which informally advised the business department to reconsider its position. The department previously had handed over heavily redacted documents in response to a Freedom of Information request.
The Information Commissioner’s Office said that there was a “significant and important public interest”, something that had been strengthened by a report from the National Audit Office in June, which found that the government’s deal had “locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”. The project has been riddled with delays and controversy over its spiralling costs.
The National Audit Office also criticised the business department for insufficiently managing the potential conflict of Leigh Fisher, another government adviser. The Times reported in November 2016 that Leigh Fisher, the management consultant, had been awarded contracts worth a combined £1.2 million despite telling officials that the British division of Jacobs Engineering Group, an American firm that owns Leigh Fisher, was working for EDF on Hinkley Point.
In tendering for a 2015 contract, KPMG told officials that “as DECC [the Department of Energy & Climate Change] is fully aware, a KPMG team is currently acting for [China General Nuclear Power Corp] in relation to their potential investment into [Hinkley Point C]. This work is being carried out by a team, separate to the KPMG team acting for DECC, operating under strict internal conditions.” The auditing firm added that it had “mature policies and procedures . . . to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest”, including “properly segregated resources . . . to handle the projects”.
In Lazard’s 82-page tender document in 2013, which initially was almost entirely redacted, it told officials “that it has no conflict of interest in respect of the work contemplated by the ITT [intention to tender] regarding the development at Hinkley Point C. The Lazard group does have a relationship with Electricité de France [EDF] led out of its Paris office and is assisting it with a current advisory mandate that has no bearing on, and creates no conflict with, the advisory work contemplated by the ITT but this will not prejudice in any manner the qualifications of a Lazard team led out of its London office to provide the high-quality, independent advice contemplated by the ITT.”
Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned against Hinkley Point C, said that the project was the “worst civil investment decision made by any government” and that the potential conflicts were “further proof that the contract was agreed for political imperatives . . . To avoid future calamities, a full national inquiry must be held.”
Leigh Fisher said that it “managed the work and resources in accordance with agreed protocols throughout”.
The National Audit Office was not aware of the KPMG and Lazard situations. On Leigh Fisher, it said: “Placing the onus on Leigh Fisher to manage the potential conflict is not in line with good practice”; “by the time Leigh Fisher did confirm it was complying with arrangements stipulated by the department, it had already completed the majority of its work”; “the department did not receive any monthly updates on the arrangements in place, as it had requested”; and that “even when the department did stipulate ethical wall arrangements, they were below the standard we would expect”.
The business department said: “In line with our requirements, both Lazard and KPMG outlined their policy on dealing with any potential conflicts of interest in their tender documents, together with the actions they would take to mitigate these. As a result, we are satisfied that the perceived conflicts had no impact on the work carried out under the contract(s).”
HINKLEY POINT C
- Session: 2017-19
- Date tabled: 23.11.2017
- Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul
- Sponsors:
That this House is shocked by the Public Accounts Committee's conclusion that no one was protecting the interests of energy consumers in the deal to construct Hinkley Point C which the Committee conclude will impose large extra costs on the average annual household electricity bill and disproportionately hit the poorest; condemns the failure to consider better value renewable sources of energy; agrees that the Government locked consumers into an expensive deal despite the case for Hinkley Point C weakening during its negotiations; is appalled that consumers will now pay £30 billion in top-up payments, five times more than the £6 billion promised in 2013; and believes that any future plans for new nuclear power must be assessed by the financial calamity of HinkleyShow:
Showing 17 out of 17
| Name | Party | Constituency | Date Signed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bardell, Hannah | Scottish National Party | Livingston | 11.12.2017 |
| Blackman, Kirsty | Scottish National Party | Aberdeen North | 04.12.2017 |
| Brown, Alan | Scottish National Party | Kilmarnock and Loudoun | 04.12.2017 |
| Cunningham, Jim | Labour Party | Coventry South | 28.11.2017 |
| Day, Martyn | Scottish National Party | Linlithgow and East Falkirk | 27.11.2017 |
| Docherty, Martin | Scottish National Party | West Dunbartonshire | 29.11.2017 |
| Flynn, Paul | Labour Party | Newport West | 23.11.2017 |
| Godsiff, Roger | Labour Party | Birmingham Hall Green | 28.11.2017 |
| Law, Chris | Scottish National Party | Dundee West | 29.11.2017 |
| Linden, David | Scottish National Party | Glasgow East | 28.11.2017 |
| Lucas, Caroline | Green Party | Brighton Pavilion | 28.11.2017 |
| MacNeil, Angus | Scottish National Party | Na h-Eileanan an Iar | 04.12.2017 |
| McNally, John | Scottish National Party | Falkirk | 28.11.2017 |
| Monaghan, Carol | Scottish National Party | Glasgow North West | 29.11.2017 |
| Rimmer, Marie | Labour Party | St Helens South and Whiston | 28.11.2017 |
| Skinner, Dennis | Labour Party | Bolsover | 29.11.2017 |
| Stephens, Christopher | Scottish National Party | Glasgow South West | 27.11.2017 |
Why is UK Information Commissioner aiding cover-up of new nuclear build financing scandal?
I was intrigued to read Alex Ralph account of The Times’ attempt to secure information on Government Advisors Lazards advice on the new build nuclear power programme. (“
Advisers on Hinkley Point C nuclear power station had ‘cosy’ ties to both sides,” 1 January 2018; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/advisers-on-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-had-cosy-ties-to-both-sides-xftxcl9sz), especially the revelation that:
"Lazard’s 82-page tender document in 2013 ...initially was almost entirely redacted ” because “Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ( BEIS) […] officials had redacted the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive.”
I have had a similar frustrating experience to The Times in trying to secure Government nuclear advice via Freedom of information legislation. On 19 September 2016 I wrote to BEIS requesting “a full copy of the report commissioned by DECC [BEIS’s predecessor department) from Evercore on different ways to fund new nuclear programmes'.
BEIS responded on 19 October 2016, confirming they held the document, but refused to release it claiming it was “was exempt from disclosure” exemptions permitted for commercial confidentiality reasons, under Regulation 12(5)(e) of FOI Act 2000.
BEIS turned down my appeal following an internal departmental review in November 2016. I subsequently appealed to the Information Commissioner, to try to get her support for the release of the 166 page report.
BEIS told the Information Commissioner :
'This advice reflects years of accumulated knowledge of the Evercore team involved and its release into the public domain would prejudice Evercore's commercial and economic interests by providing a document encapsulating and reflecting that knowledge to other parties. This information could be used by Evercore's competitors at a time when both they and Evercore may be assessing whether to compete for any future Government procurement processes in relation to new nuclear investment in the UK'.
In other words, BEIS put the commercial interests of a private consultancy, Evercore, before the British public’s right to know how the financial fiasco of Hinkley Point C was allowed to come about.
To my astonishment, the Information Commissioner’s office agreed to support private commercial interests of Evercore and French Government-owned EDF Energy, (the developers of Hinkley C), before the public interest in rejecting my appeal on 21 November last year.
The situation over the cover up by BEIS over Hinkley Point is a scandal that surely merits investigation by the House of Commons Public Accounts, Environmental Audit and Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committees.
I hope the respective female Labour MP chairs will organize a collective investigation when Parliament returns next week as a matter of urgency.
Posted by: David Lowry | January 06, 2018 at 04:06 PM
Yeah fair comment. Vested interests, calumnies, it doesn't look good. I don't see how they can find fault. Indeed idleness and dull wits probably describe it.
Imagine committing tens of £billions for future generations when it is a bad deal. Who in fact is on hand to litigate, when the devil (short hand hyperbole for demented greed) is against you.
Broach them. Stand up to them, embarrass them and get in their faces, you are right here. Stick to your principle and you have them snared. In fact we WANT them to come at you, attack you, such is the baselesness of this policy.
There is a time to go for the enemy, this is one. If they are useless, worn out, out-dated we owe them precisely nothing in patience and esteem. In fact I've said as much repeatedly.
I'll mention class. The world is formed around them. Its senseless to identify with a latter day minority. Are the people so easily comforted and charmed? We laugh at other countries (we as in 'some of the people some of the time'), yet ours is shit. I realise that is somewhat provacative but hear me out: we really don't have much to fall back on. Basics like truth, peace kindness are foundations. Things however that we should never be ashamed of.
Now, personally, and this will stick in some throats, why walk from one place, follow, obediently from one king to another?
You can have everything you want. That quite simply is the proper order.
Posted by: Ad | January 03, 2018 at 01:58 AM